please forgive me if this is a stupid question. i've been dabbing into home audio occasionally for the past 5 years and the more i learn, the more questions i have.
how come a lot of speakers have more than one of the same speakers types? i see a lot of axiom speakers have 2 mid ranges and 1 tweeter. i see some of the center channel speakers have 3 mid ranges and 2 tweeters. wouldnt this sound just as good with 1 of each? my mediocre yamahas even each have 2 mid ranges, 1 tweeter. my old sony home theater only had a single mid range per channel no tweeter. i know sony and yamaha speakers are far inferior to axiom and bose(although bose imo is way overpriced). i do see though on some axiom surround speakers that they face the tweeters in opposing directions which i can see makes sense because i assume that way you have a wider area for sound. but what about the others like the center where they face the same direction?
so does having multiple of the same speaker on the same channel really improve sound? im sure they've done testing and it is better or they wouldnt have done it but what is the reasoning behind it?
In some cases, such as the M80s, it improves power handling--ie, more drivers (ie midranges, tweeters, woofers) can play their given frequencies louder with less potential for damage.
Multiple woofers (or mid-woofers, if you prefer) exist for similar reasons, but the target there is moving more air--the more air you move, the louder it is. Using multiple woofers is sometimes considered better than using single larger woofers because of packaging and stiffness of the material (which translates to more accurate reproduction).
On the center channel, I believe the additional tweeters aid with dispersion, but I'm not certain there.
Also, Bose only pretends to be high end. They're really not very good speakers at all. Stick with manufacturers such as Axiom, Paradigm, Aperion, Wilson, Polk, Klipsch, etc.
thanks a lot, very helpful and fast reply!
i've actually been told a lot that bose is overrated. i know a lot of audioholics dont seem to like them. i actually had an old pair of bose bookshelf speakers like over 10 years old. they sounded ok but nothing special about them. i also dont like how they hype so much their newer all in one, 2 channel system and try and say its like surround. honestly i havent heard it yet, but i dont see how it could compare to a 7.1 system with quality speakers.
right now im stuck with a 7.1 yamaha receiver which i really like, but my yamaha speakers sure need to be replaced sometime. i mainly use it for gaming, sure is awesome on shooter games to hear the bullets coming from all angles. but even at low volumes, i can hear static and distortion. i actually think my speakers from my sony home theater sounded better but couldnt use them cause the ohms were not right. not only that but my old sony home theater receiver had no hdmi input, and not even a single optical or digital coax(orange rca port). im thinking of keeping the receiver because the only thing i dont like about it is its only got 2 hdmi inputs. but im really leaning towards upgrading the speakers to axiom. i know this company knows their stuff!
Best Bang for the Buck in Audiophile speakers.
Ski, welcome. As Ken indicated, a speaker that uses multiple drivers for a given frequency range doesn't necessarily sound better. The advantage would be in being able to play louder with low distortion, but at lower volume levels this wouldn't be significant. At louder volumes the cone of the driver has to move out and back farther, and the amount it can move is limited if distortion is to remain low. Two drivers playing the same sound(each with the same distance of cone movement) increase the net sound level generally by 3dB, and this can be as much as 6dB, depending on how close they are to each other.
Hi Skradtim. I agree with all of the above.
Regarding BOSE: Quality sound is a very subjective thing. Audiophiles have their definition of "scientifically" what it should be, but put the majority of them in a room together to evaluate a speaker and you will get hostile disagreement.
I think BOSE came into life as a legitimate speaker company, as some early models seem to garner respect from the critics, but I think they very quickly grasped the concept in the paragraph above and realized that they didn't really have to build good sounding speakers, they just had to SELL speakers.
They do a very good job of targeting the level of consumer who want to feel as if they bought a high end piece of gear but aren't one of those crazy audiophiles who foolishly spend thousands.
Marketing aside, we all have to admit to going to a store to pick up a product that we know little or nothing about and when presented with three or more price ranges, we choose the middle priced brand, (most probably in the higher range of the mid priced.) Simply because if we buy the cheapest, we think it will be inferior but we don't want to buy the really expensive one and feel like a sucker when we go to the counter.
There are many companies who price themselves into the upper-mid market for just this reason. BOSE just takes it a step up a notch to the point where you can question their ethics.
By clicking on my link in signature line, you would probably think I'm crazy, because I use multiple pairs of mains. I do this for a better listening experience. I've noticed that a wall of sound is much more dramatic than just a pair speakes for mains. Same with center channel.
My understanding is that the dual tweeters the M80/VP180 utilizes is strictly for the extra power they can handle.
Bose used to make some very fine speakers, but they now sell marketing hype over quality sound. My father has a Bose 3-2-1 system and trust me, it does not sound like a real surround system.
thank you so much everyone! you all were very helpful